“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,
“Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”
'Groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.'
“Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has long questioned climate change orthodoxy, is skeptical that a sunnier outlook is upon us.
“I actually doubt that,” he said. Even if some of the roughly $2.5 billion in taxpayer dollars currently spent on climate research across 13 different federal agencies now shifts to scientists less invested in the calamitous narrative, Lindzen believes groupthink has so corrupted the field that funding should be sharply curtailed rather than redirected.
“They should probably cut the funding by 80 to 90 percent until the field cleans up,” he said. “Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”
The field is cluttered with entrenched figures who must toe the established line, he said, pointing to a recent congressional report that found the Obama administration got a top Department of Energy scientist fired and generally intimidated the staff to conform with its politicized position on climate change.
“Remember this was a tiny field, a backwater, and then suddenly you increased the funding to billions and everyone got into it,” Lindzen said. “Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist,’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Are we seeing anything sufficiently unusual to warrant concern and the answer to this is unambiguously no’
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen at DC climate summit: ‘The only meaningful question would be whether we are seeing anything sufficiently unusual to warrant concern and the answer to this is unambiguously no.’
Lindzen used a quote to explain the climate change movement saying it has ‘degenerating into a racket. And those who benefit in the racket will defend it with passion.’
97 Consensus? Dr. Lindzen: ‘They never really tell you what they agree on. It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce co2 etc. If you can make an ambiguous remark and you have people who will amplify it ‘they said it not me’ and he response of the political system is to increase your funding, what’s not to like?’
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen on ‘hottest year’ claim: ‘Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?’
Watch: MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen on Fox News: ‘The whole thing is fairly absurd’ – ‘We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2’
Click here to watch:
Lindzen: ‘These guys think saying climate changes, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming.’
MIT’s Dr. Lindzen in WSJ: ‘The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics’ – ‘Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm…even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating’
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.’
The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom.
‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.’